If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

Originally Posted by flyer85

this isn't about EE, its about a 1 year rental of a 35 year old with a bad injury history who is having a likely last hurrah year.

Like the guys on Home Plate said, you could easily make an argument for this deal if it put a team over the top or even close to it. But the Reds are nowhere near that, instead there are huge holes to fill. Maybe prospects are overvalued, if so, they frittered a few away for minimal impact.

it would be interesting to see what PECOTA thinks of Rolen and EE for 2010.

Re: Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

Getting rid of an expensive hitter who can't hit or field is worth it by itself.

Without question, the Reds get better offensively and defensively. They still need pitching, lots of it. But they need an impact bat and glove almost as much. Fix what you can when you can.

What's the downside of waiting til the offseason?

- Two more months of EdE instead of Rolen? That gains us what? three-four more victories maybe. Doesn't get us into the playoffs, but it could cost us a draft slot or two.

- A couple of more months to shine up EdE and maybe even get a better deal for him? Yeah, there's just as a good a chance that he regresses, but no worse than the chance that Rolen's back gives out before the end of September.

- 6-8 more months to see if Stewart can be packaged with other of our "meaningless minor leagues" and bring in a young SS? Deal young guys if you want, but get maximuum return. There's no reason to believe that Stewart's value would not have increased with another year. A young SS would much more value than Rolen and there's no reason to believe that it would kill the the Rolen deal. In fact, there's even more reason to believe Stewart's inclusion was a panic move on WJ's part.

- Someone else would have swooped in and taken him out of our clutches? Sometimes if you think about a problem long enough, it just goes away. There's no reason though to believe that Jocketty was bidding against anyone but himself.

Re: Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

Originally Posted by SMcGavin

Nothing wrong with teaching (in any field) but it's not nearly as useful as actual experience.

I actually don't think they're separable. Rolen's seen a ton of pitchers a ton of times--Dusty and Jacoby haven't so they're not going to be able convey pitch by pitch breakdowns for him. Sure, the only way he'll learn is experience, but having an encyclopedic knowledge of current active pitchers' repertoires is a pretty valuable thing.

Re: Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

- Two more months of EdE instead of Rolen? That gains us what? three-four more victories maybe. Doesn't get us into the playoffs, but it could cost us a draft slot or two.

- A couple of more months to shine up EdE and maybe even get a better deal for him? Yeah, there's kust a good a chance that he regresses, but no worse than the chance that Rolen's back gives out before the end of September.

- 6-8 more months to see if Stewart can be packaged with other of our "meaningless minor leagues" and bring in a young SS? Deal young guys if you want, but get maximuum return. There's no reason to believe that Stewart's value would not have increased with another year. A young SS would much more value than Rolen and there's no reason to believe that it would kill the the Rolen deal. In fact, there's even more reason to believe Stewart's inclusion was a panic move on WJ's part.

- Someone else would have swooped in and taken him out of our clutches? Sometimes if you think about a problem long enough, it just goes away. There's no reason though to believe that Jocketty was bidding against anyone but himself.-

Re: Heyman says Rolen to the Reds

Originally Posted by M2

I'd expect the Reds to do far less than is required. Yet they might play a more engaging brand of baseball despite that.

I think this is right. They have a mountain to climb, but I don't feel they've sacrificed anything much at all in order to gain a great hitter and defender who plays a position where the Reds have exactly no options right now. And that's better than peeing down my leg. It's talent, not bull, as you've said.

In the end, there's a good chance I'll think the price was too high. But as far as I was concerned, "new third baseman" was pretty high on the 2010 Reds to-do list, and today it's checked off. So we'll see where it goes from here.

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball